This dispute arose out of a demand by plaintiffs to examine the books and records of the defendant church which is a nonprofit corporation. Plaintiffs claim to be members of the church, which is not denied, and their demand to examine the books and records falls under LSA-R.S. 12:223(A) and *612(C) of the Louisiana Nonprofit Corporation Law.1
Plaintiffs secured a court order to examine the church records, did so and were unsatisfied that all records had been produced. Subsequently, defendants filed an exception of no right of action2 and lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.3 The trial court overruled the exception of no right of action, but maintained the exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and accordingly dismissed plaintiffs’ lawsuit.
Defendants-appellees do not contest appellants’ position as church members. Plaintiffs assert their right to examine the records “. . . in order to see for themselves how much money the church takes in and how the money is spent.” There is no allegation of misappropriation or mismanagement, only the desire to inspect the church records.
The trial judge relied on Henry v. Newman, 351 So.2d 1277 (La.App. 1st Cir., 1977) in sustaining the exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
In Henry, supra, the dispute involved changing locations of the church building. The First Circuit defined the limited role which secular courts should assume in religious disputes in order not to interfere with constitutional guarantees of religious freedom. It determined that location of the church building was a purely ecclesiastical matter within the protection of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The court, in dicta, agreed with plaintiffs that “it is ‘well settled that courts will not deal with spiritual or ecclesiastical matters pertaining to incorporated religious societies . . ., but . . . that ‘. . . it is equally well recognized that courts may and should deal with property rights involving such societies.’ ” 351 So.2d at 1279.
Where property disputes arise civil courts are not precluded from settling the issue. Presbyterian Ch. v. Mary E. B. Hull Mem. Pres. Ch., 393 U.S. 440, 89 S.Ct. 601, 21 L.Ed.2d 658 (1969); R. W. Jones, Sr., et al. v. Charles T. Wolf, et al., 443 U.S. 595, 99 S.Ct. 3020, 61 L.Ed.2d 775 (1979).
When the matter at issue is not a dispute over property rights but possible dissension regarding church management in a religious society, then courts are not to interfere. The Supreme Court clearly stated their objective in Jones, supra, “to free civil courts completely from entanglement in questions of religious doctrine, polity and practice.” 99 S.Ct. at 3025.
A church organized under the provisions of our corporation statutes does not automatically subject itself to civil review in matters which are ecclesiastical in nature or absent a property dispute. Appellants provide no specifications to conclude that a property dispute exists. Accordingly, we agree with the trial judge in declining jurisdiction over the subject matter of this lawsuit.
The District Court judgment is affirmed with plaintiffs-appellants to pay all costs of this appeal.
AFFIRMED.